KARLE CHANNEGOWDA SHAMANNA,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, HASSAN

Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of authorities below are that the assessee is a civil contractor. It had filed its return of income on 19.1.2018 declaring total income of Rs.25,76,080/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to verity the receipts u/s 194C and 194J of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the Karle Channegowda Shamanna, Hassan Page 2 of 3 assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.45,99,100/- in cash with his bank account during the period of demonetization. Replying the source of the cash, assessee filed his submissions along with one cash flow statement drawn as per the books of the assessee. Dissatisfied with the reply of the assessee, the AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee and then applied a net profit rate of 8% and computed the income of the assessee afresh. The AO has also added the amount of cash deposited during the period of demonetization accepting the source of Rs 5 lakhs only.

Aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and made submissions. The ld. CIT(A) after reproducing the written submissions of the assessee affirmed the order of AO without assigning any cogent reason. In other words, the CIT(A) has passed the order, without recording any independent findings with respect to the contentions raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A).

Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee craved for one more opportunity before the ld CIT(A) and made a request to the bench that the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to decide the matter in accordance with law.

Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of authorities below.

After considering the arguments of both sides and appreciating the orders of authorities below, we are of the firm opinion that this matter requires fresh consideration at the end of ld. CIT(A). The perusal of order of ld. CIT(A) at para 3 would show that there is Karle Channegowda Shamanna, Hassan Page 3 of 3 absolutely no independent finding of the Ld CIT(A) vis-à-vis the contentions of the assessee raised before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has not followed the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the totality of the facts, we restore this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after considering the contentions as well as appreciating the evidence produced by assessee before him.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2025 (Prashant Maharishi) Vice President (Prakash Chand Yadav) Judicial Member

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file